Vijayangara history is complex in that it self consciously procalimed a template of Statecraft that was predicated upon the negation of the disruptions wrought by the onset or invasions of the turushka. In fact the trope of destroying the turushka appears even in the inscriptions of Krishnadeva Raya and to ignore the underlying political ideology animating Vijayanagara statecraft is merely a surrender to the kind of identity politics India has seen in the years follwing Independence. Turushka meant Turk and did not imply a religious identity at all and to shy away from this issue on the grounds that it may be offensive to present day sensibilities of political correctness is not merely being anachronistic by historically inaccurate.When Vijayanagara began its slow but steady march toward Empire it projected its raison d'tre as the Restoration of Worship in temples destroyed by the turushka. The raids of Kafur and the Tughlaqs had resulted in a virtual collapse of the moral order. The language of Apoclypse is deployed in an early Copper Plate Inscription: "When the sun. Prataparudra set, the world was enveloped in the turushka darkness".
Srinivasa Reddy begins his narrative biography of Krishnadevaraya with the famous Hampe Inscription which was trasnlated by Eugene Hultzsch in Epigraphia Indica Vol I. Generally recognised as a danasasana, issued on the occasion of his coronation the Inscription states in its 11th verse that Krishnadeva Raya connquered the Chera, Chola, the proud Pandyas, the brave Turushka, the Gajapathi king and others. This claim of conquest of the Gajapathi or for that matter even victory over the Turushka is merely rhetorical, a statement of intent rather than of accomplishemt an Krishdevaraya took control over the Empire upon the death of his half brother, Vira Narashimha in 1509 and there is no evidence that he had participated in any major campaign with his fater Narasa Nayaka. Again there is no hstorical evidence to suggest that Gandikota, Vinnukonda and Nagarajakonda were suggested as likely targets of Vijayanagar acquisition by Narasa Nayaka. Srinivas Reddy cannot resist the temptation of including an intersting myth, story fable even cinema dialogues. Thus he accepts the story of Vidyaranya ad his association with Harihara and Bukka even though there is compelling evidence that this myth came to the fore only in the decades after 1565 as shown by Hermann Kulke. A historian will not allow an intersting story to structure his narrative.
The most impressive part of the book are the chapters dealing with the conflict with the Gajapathi rulers of Orissa. Reddy keeps harping on the "low caste" status of Krishnadevaraya. He calls him "dasi putra". There is absolutely no historical evidence to show that caste perceptions in any way influeced the conflict. Gajapathi, Narapathi and Ashwapathi remained the trypych around which the polity of the medieval South Indian empire revolved. And the Gajpathi king himself came fom a dynasty of usurpers and so would not have thow such caste laden invective against Krishnadevaraya. It appears tht identity politics of today and caste laden social sciences inflused with identity politics makes such outlandish interpretations not only possible but academically rspectable. The fact is that such labels were unknown in the Vijayanagara period.
Krishnadevara raya presided over an Empire that was linguistically diverse, complex in terms of religious and sectarian composition and the social structure of the Vijayanagara polity was certainly stratified. However caste was still not the deciding factor as the very diversity of the Great Captains, the amaranayankara-s. demonstrates. Only one Historian has attempted a prosopographical study of Nayakas. Krishnadevaraya bore the biruda, Hindu raya Sutrranna or Sultan of HinduKings a title which underscores the tremendous influence of the Islamic political formations of the Deccan.
The book under review is certainly interesting. But its claim to be History can be contested.
